The Atheist’s Fatal Flaw – A Review

Norman L. Geisler and Daniel J. McCoy. The Atheist’s Fatal Flaw: Exposing Conflicting Beliefs. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014. 192 pp. $11.97.

 

            I have heard it said, and I agree, that we should not present an argument against another person’s position without first being able to express that person’s position in such a way that the person would agree that what we have presented is indeed their belief. In The Atheist’s Fatal Flaw, popular apologist Norman Geisler along with Daniel McCoy attempt to do just this regarding some popular atheistic arguments against belief in God.

 

            Geisler and McCoy cite the writings of multiple popular atheistic authors and speakers in order to present a clear and fair understanding of one of the most common objections voiced by atheists against the concept of a deity. The authors then attempt to disclose that there is a natural self-contradiction in the rationale adopted by many atheists.

 

            In this work, Geisler and McCoy address the atheist’s objection to the existence of God based on the issue of moral evil. The authors point out multiple ways in which atheistic authors and speakers have argued that for there to really be a God as the Bible presents, that God clearly would have done something to put an end to the kinds of moral evil and atrocities that we have seen all throughout human history. The authors then also point out that the same oppose on moral grounds of their own making the concept of divine intervention to put a stop to all evil, the worst cases of evil, or to work within the consciences of the willing to prevent evil. The atheists seem to be demanding that God act more strongly to prevent human on human evil, but to somehow do so without exercising divine authority or inhibiting human freedom in any way. The authors summarize, “In short, we will find that the atheist demands God fix the problem of moral evil while at the same time demanding freedom from the very methods God would use to fix it” (113).

 

            The authors then go on to point out that the atheists will turn back on their own rationale by arguing that the kinds of intervention that they deny God the right to do would be perfectly acceptable if done by humanity. Thus, their opposition to limited human freedom is only opposition to God limiting human freedom. Geisler and McCoy declare, “In a second inconsistency, the atheist seems to reverse stances on the immorality of the divine interventions. Whereas he argues scathingly against the morality of these interventions at the divine level, somehow these interventions turn out not to be problematic at the societal level” (124).

 

            This work has several strengths that readers should appreciate. Geisler and McCoy offer a plethora of quotations from a variety of atheists to make clear the atheistic position. This indicates a level of honesty from these authors regarding their treatment of the atheistic argument. Geisler and McCoy are not trying to set up and destroy straw men.

 

            The two contradictions that Geisler and McCoy find in the atheistic arguments are strong objections that must be addressed by those who would hold to an atheistic position based on the problem of moral evil. Geisler and McCoy raise a strong question about whether full human autonomy—an attribute highly valued by many atheists—is something that can somehow be held to while demanding that God somehow override that autonomy in cases of moral evil. Also, if an atheist argues that human beings can work to put an end to evil by use of moral judgment, reward, punishment, etc., why would such tactics be inappropriate for the Creator?

 

            This book is not for everyone. It is certainly true that some atheists will have different arguments that they claim are their particular objections to faith in God. Such people will rightly claim that Geisler and McCoy have not landed on their “fatal flaw.” For some readers, the sheer volume of quotes will be hard to wade through—I found myself fatigued by the mountains of quotes, some of which were used multiple times. And, for Christians who are emotionally sensitive to aggressive atheistic statements, this book will be hard to stomach.

 

            Truthfully, I believe the book’s greatest weakness may be the overreach of the title. The title of this work could lead a person to believe that this book contains a secret weapon in apologetics to settle the atheistic issue once and for all. However, truthfully, atheists have other arguments that they use to hold to their own faith in a lack of faith in God. Thus, to promise that this pointing out of a contradiction in the atheistic understanding of theodicy will be “fatal” to the atheist’s worldview over-promises and under-delivers.   

 

            Overall, I would recommend The Atheist’s Fatal Flaw to a Christian interested in apologetics or to an honest atheist who is willing to look at a Christian objection to an atheist’s claim that the problem of evil seals the theist’s fate. While not the easiest read or always the most engaging, this work has some challenging reasoning that many would do well to work through.

 

            I received a free copy of this work from Baker Books as part of a book reviewer’s program. Baker Books has not influenced this review in any way, but has simply asked for an honest review of the book.